Talk:Uru: Ages Beyond Myst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Uru: Ages Beyond Myst is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Uru: Ages Beyond Myst is part of the Myst series series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2013.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Adventure games task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:


Former 'Uru: Ages Before Myst' text[edit]

The following text is from the misnamed page Uru: Ages Before Myst. Copied here in case someone wants to add some of it to the article.

Developed by Cyan Worlds (previously known as Cyan Inc), Uru: Ages Beyond Myst is the next step in the well known Myst series of games. This new game takes advantage of both 3D realtime technology to explore 3D realistic worlds in real time, and of a broadband Internet connection enabling multiple players to experience the game together.

Uru is different than many other computer games out there. Uru is a game of exploration, the goal is to explore mysterious worlds, or ages, rather than to shoot at things. The game's plot revolves around the D'ni civilization. The D'ni were a race of people who lived in an underground city in a huge cavern somewhere under New Mexico. They had developed a technology called "The Art", which enabled them to write books so descriptive that they transported the reader to the worlds they described.

Uru had been under development by Cyan Worlds for four years since 1998. Originally the game was called DIRT, which stands for D'ni In Real Time. Later, they called it MUDPIE, which stands for Multi User Dirt Plasma Interactive Experience. It takes a lot of Dirt to make a Mudpie. Still Later, their publisher, Ubi Soft, gave it the name Myst Online as a code name, and finally Cyan decided to call it Uru: Ages Beyond Myst.

I added some of this (entirely reworded, though) into the main page. Most of this text sounds non-factual - for example, the "It takes a lot of Dirt to make a Mudpie" sentence feels out of place, as it isn't explained well. I'm leaving the text here in case anyone else feels there is more valuable info in it than I have found... -- Chucker 18:26, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

One sentence in under the Until Uru section doesn't make sense to me: "Server administrators can access players have (for example, cones and barriers in the style the DRC had put them up can be positioned inside the caverns)..." Should the sentence read "Server administrators can restrict access players have..."? I believe that Chucker created this section; as I'm unsure of what he meant, I'll leave the edit to him. -- Sahara Beara 18:26, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Location of the Cleft[edit]

The Cleft is in New Mexico. This has been confirmed by Cyan employee RAWA ("Dr Watson"), as well as by Rand Miller. In the book of Ti'ana the Cleft is indeed implied to be in the middle-east, but this is artistic licence by the book's real author, David Wingrove. Apparently he changed the backstory a bit, and this was not caught by Cyan employees in time (who were working on Riven at the time). As for the strategy guide, I own it. It is presented as an explorer's journey, and it is that explorer's initial thoughts that the Cleft is a reproduction -- albeit a perfect copy. This is clearly not the case. Jordi· 01:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't that he changed the backstory; he wasn't given that detail in the first place. Cyan wanted to keep it secret, so they just told Wingrove it was by a random volcano in a random desert. Wingrove added the Middle-East flavor. Cyan almost certainly caught it, but they were okay with the mislead. They even treated it in-character as a deliberate DRC tactic later.  :)
And yeah, about the strategy guide. He was in disbelief about the Cleft being real at all, not just about its location.  :)
--SFT 12:22, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
I'm willing to subscribe to the notion that the Cleft might not be in the Middle East, but how, then, do you explain the fact that there are no volcanoes in Eddy County, New Mexico (the location of the Cleft in Uru)? A misprint of the sign? --SciGuy65 23:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fact that D'ni is fictional. SFT 16:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
An elaborate cover-up by the DRC. Further misdirection by Cyan. Or perhaps because D'ni, and all of Myst, is fiction. Jordi· 18:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Uru Hacking[edit]

While I agree with the revision removing the text on Uru Hacking as horribly lacking in NPOV, I do think that Uru Hacking would be useful to cronicle in the history of UU. It has been a critical part of the community. Blade 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Split into Uru Prime and Uru Live[edit]

Maybe we should split this into Uru: Ages Beyond Myst and Uru Live, as Uru Live is now becoming a different thing than just the online extension of Uru Prime? Opinions? Blade 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose to wait and see how the new Uru Live will develop Gbnogkfs 27 may 2006, 14:14 (UTC)
If eventually (hopefully) it does come about, we should make a new page. Now, however, there's not much info on it that really justifies a new page, and there's always the possibility that it could still be canceled. Maybe when Beta starts or sometime when there's more information available. Korinth111 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we wait, because this is just still getting underway. I think, to create a URU live page already would just serve to confuse people. Already, we're getting people on the forum asking "So where is it? Where is URU live?" Better to just point them to the FAQ and emphasize "holiday 2006". At that point, then let's talk about a URU live page. ToriaURU 02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that if you look at it, we've got a lot of stuff with just as much or less information listed under the category "Computer and video games under development"... I'm too lazy to start one myself, but there probably should be one. Maratanos 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

International Uru[edit]

I just revised the edit that made it seem like Uru Live will not be available outside the US. That's incorrect. Yes, GameTap is unavailable outside the US. But the Uru Live FAQ says both that you dont have to have GameTap for Uru Live AND that Uru will definitely be available internationally. Blade 06:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And translated. Gbnogkfs 28 may 2006, 11:22 (UTC)
Yes, people just do not seem to read the FAQ. It's quite annoying to have to repeat that news again, and again. ToriaURU 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Uru release date[edit]

I have a suggestions; shouldn't the date that Uru was released be right up there at the top of the article? I don't know when Uru came out myself (was it in 2003?). If someone else does know, then I just want to encourage them to put the date clearly up at the top of the article. Thank you! --Jonathan talk 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the table in the upper left of the article. Blade 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see...but couldn't I also add it to the introduction? --Jonathan talk 14:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clutter?[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but the article seems to be a bit cluttered. Much of the Kagi Key issues (minus one or both of the quotes; the issues they bring up are important to Uru history but not necessarily pertinant enough to have a quote, especially concerning Gamerzunion, as nothing has ever, to my knowledge, come from that) could be merged directly into a bigger Until Uru section that could also include D'mala. And is 'Gameplay' really the right word for what has evolved into a short history of Uru? Korinth111 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agre that these sections are cluttered, and also I feel they are poorly worded. --TheIslander 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The quote from Rand Miller about the keys could be removed, the link reference to it would do.
  2. Mention of GamerZunion: could be removed, I think it's not notable, nothing developed from it. --Bisco 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Mudpie article[edit]

Mudpie: I think this code name doesn't need a seperate article. It's a stub and tagged for having only few links. I think all notable information could be included here. The mudpie article could then remain as disambig page for the seperate meanings. --Bisco 02:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Blade 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --I80and 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
disambig page sounds good to me also. --EarthFurst 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Fan Site links?[edit]

The Fan site section seems really bloated. What do people say about pairing it down significantly? Blade 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The international links could be moved to the corresponding localized Wikipedias (like es.wikipedia.org and fr.wikipedia.org).

Tapestry should be removed from the forums section, as the forum no longer exists. --EricLarge 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Kadish Tolesa in Munich?[edit]

When the movie Munich came out in 2005, I saw a commercial for it that featured the song from Kadish Tolesa. I can't find the commercial online anywhere, does anyone know anything about this? Sailorknightwing 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

see article Uru Music. Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just saw that. Whoopsie! Thanks. Sailorknightwing 01:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Uru Music article[edit]

Resolved

It is a stub, and would bolster this article as it heads for GA or FA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, merge... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The articles are probably stronger together than they are separate. For both positive (better chance of reaching GA) and negative (failure to meet WP:NOT, WP:N) reasons. Randomran (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Rehevkor 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. I can't honestly see there ever being enough on the subject for its own article, in fact had I seen it I would have suggested a merge. ----Ged UK (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Myst Online[edit]

Basically all the development information for this article was taken and made into its own article. The Myst Online game is a modified version of this one, and if put back into this article eliminates a big stub, and sets the stage for a very comprehensive article that could be featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I was initally skeptical, but I can see sense to this now. Merge it, we'll get a far better article as a result. -- Sabre (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced. They are very distinct games, though admitedly with a big overlap. My worry is that the distinction between the two games will be lost if they are all one article. We have to be very careful that the reader does not become confused between the two things. The online version of ABM never really got beyond beta, it failed. The Gametap version is so different in terms of accessing and in-game interaction that it is really a separate game.
I also don't really see how it 'eliminates a big stub'; it just makes the article longer. The section on Uru live in this article is, in my opinion, already too long and confuses things.
I don't see why not having Uru Live in stops this article becoming featured (or the other one for that matter); FA isn't about quantity of content, but quality of content. If the overwhelming opinion is to merge them, fine, but like I said, we need to be very careful to maintain the distinction from the game. --Ged UK (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If the Uru Live section in this article is too long, then I very much dont see why you support a separate and longer article for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't, I'd prefer a seperate article for Uru Live, not the short lived beta that ABM had. They're different. This article should only refer to the live beta up to and including the Shards. When gametap took over, it's a different thing, this article should simply then link to the other one, not go into detail about that. ABM can still be played, Uru Live can't. --Ged UK (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Aside from information about the shards, which I haven't expounded, and the various chapters of Myst Online, the information present is really all the info suitable for a general encyclopedia. What else would you add that would allow Myst Online to be featured? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely strongly oppose this. As Ged UK points out, the two are completely separate beasts, on the whole. The main (big, I'll certainly admit :P ) similarity is that they are set in the same universe, and were both born from the same concept. However, as Ged points out, the original URU Live lasted a matter of weeks before Ubisoft pulled the plug. We then have Until URU, a community run venture, which was followed by Myst Online: URU Live, run by Gametap. A completely new game, this incarnation had a completely new physics engine, so was basically re-written from scratch. It also contained a lot more content that the original URU Live, clearly, as it actually lasted a year - time for Cyan to get their teeth into it, to an extent. Gametap then pulled the plug, and we had the idea of MO:RE, and that in turn has been put on hold due to financial difficulties. As you can see, Myst Online, in it's various guises, has a lot of (sourceable) history, that just shouldn't clutter up this article. All this can be traced from decent sources, and all of this deserves it's own article, just as Myst shouldn't be merged with Riven, or Myst IV with Myst V - they're separate games. Granted, the current MO:UL article is somewhat a mess (though not as bad as it was before July...), and needs a lot of work. It does not need to be merged. On a small note, I believe what Ged means when he says that the section in this article is already 'too big' is that it just contains too much information to remain self-contained in this article - it needs it's own separate article. I've discussed this extensively with David in the past - see here, in his archives. TalkIslander 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, quick note: Let's get our terminology right. The Myst Online: Uru Live article is in no way, shape or form a stub - not at all. According to WP:STUB: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" - see what I mean? TalkIslander 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(written during an edit conflict) As I said before, it's not a question of quantity, but quality. Simply adding a load more stuff on another, albeit related game, is no more likely to get an article to featured status than leaving it out. It's perfectly possible to get short articles to featured. Well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, all of those are achievable without adding extra related content. The comprehensive criterion I'm sure can be met provided the article covers everything about ABM; I really don't see the need to add stuff about URU Live for the sake of getting it to featured. They really are two separate things. ----Ged UK (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The article does not have enough reliable sources to justify its own article, most of the text is too detailed to be included in a wikipedia article in the first place, and the rest is mostly unsourced and likely unsourcable. So it is a stub in terms of reliably sourced non-trivial content. And all of that material can fit quite nicely into this article without having a large unimprovable stub article detailing unsourcable game trivia. So let's merge it and delete the large amount of trivia that pretends to be an article so we can have one article that actually meets the wikipedia criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've pretty much finished my final run-through on sources, and in terms of content I can see maybe another paragraph of information on Myst Online '​s reception in terms of Wikipedia-worthy content. That can easily be integrated into this article's reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, well, if you wish to delete to MO:UL article in order to merge into this, you'll have to take it to AfD, as at least two of us oppose this merge, negating the possibility of a WP:BOLD merge. TalkIslander 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
AfD isn't the place for editorial discussions such as merges. If you want, we can start an RfC (as attempts at getting more eyes on WT:VG has evidently failed.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
An RfC would certainly be better than nothing, but it still won't attract as much attention as an AfD, which is a perfectly valid route to take for deleting an article, which you must effectively do to complete a merge. TalkIslander 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Or we could have you dig up more information to demonstrate that it should have it's own article, as David has already searched and found not enough to justify a whole article. If you could do that, then we would know for sure whether or not it could stand on its own, or if not, you would then have to agree that it should not have its own article. Sound like a plan? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find. Give me a few days (like over the weekend). Clarification: This is separate to the eight distinct cites that are already in this article in the MOUL section? --Ged UK (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
←In addition to what's already here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't get a chance to do this this weekend. I haven't forgotten it, please don't charge on regardless. Thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What about this: since the article as currently written would have to be dramatically revamped anyway, why don't we just userfy Myst Online in someone's space? That way it can be improved and we can evaluate if it works as a standalone article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance either - appologies. WP:DEADLINE springs to mind - the article has survived for however many years so far, why is there a rush to get it deleted/merged? It won't affect the quality of other articles. I know you're working very hard on (and have done a bloody good job of) getting all the Myst articles gradually up to FA standard - why not just hold back a bit on this one for a bit? TalkIslander 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, in part I don't want to keep the GA reviewer waiting on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
But my point is, if in this article you mention MO:UL to a certain depth, and then refer to the main MO:UL article, will the poor quality of the main MO:UL article really drag this one down? Surely this article should stand on its own - if, at a later date, it is agreed that the two articles should be merged, then that can be done then. TalkIslander 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. Carry on then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
But some point soon, please check, because this article being crappy is an obstacle to a Myst featured topic, which is literally a week or two away from completion. It may be better to userify it, and if you find more references, it can be restored and improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You've got my word that as soon as I've got the time, I will work on it. However, I still don't understand why it should affect any other article at all - it's (currently) a very poor article, but why does that drag down any other article? TalkIslander 20:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What Judge is getting at is that minus Myst Online and a successful GA for the series article, the featured topic is complete. But Myst Online would be part of the topic, so it couldn't be nominated until the Myst Online gets through GA, because the criteria require it neglect no aspect of the topic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so both VG talk and a RfC have gotten nowhere... can we just shunt the article to userspace until additional sources are found? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The Myst featured topic is complete, so let's put this in the userspace till someone finds a lot more references, and let it be nominated as a featured topic. And if more references are found, I'm sure David will bring that to GA status and add it in. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry. I don't know why you're in such a rush, I really don't, but Wikipedia has no deadline. There is no valid reason to move that article to userspace - it stands on its own. Again, I'm not for a moment saying that it doesn't need improving, but there is no reason to move it out of the mainspace. TalkIslander 09:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Moving an article out of the mainspace so that it doesn't affect a featured topic is non-sensical. If the point of a featured topic is to havea arange of featured or good articles on a related theme, then simply moving one poorer article out of the way lessens the accuracy of the whole topic. --Ged UK (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering that all the relevant info is already in this article... It's not reducing accuracy, just redundancy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the relevant info shouldn't be in this article, it should be in the other one. --Ged UK (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
But you haven't proved as above that it can stand on its own with development, reception, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break one[edit]

←News just in on Friday: URU Live is to become an open-source project. Now, if being one of the very few (perhaps only, though I don't know on that front) open-sourced MMORPG's doesn't make the MO:UL article stand up on it's own, I don't know what does. TalkIslander 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

...Which would, for all intents and purposes, make it a completely different game from Uru Live (and Tony Fryman's own words make that distinction). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. I have to say, I fail to understand your logic - it's the same game (as URU Live / Myst Online, not URU ABM): same engine, same story, same mechanics, same source code, same everything. Only difference is, it will now be open source, and run mainly by the fans instead of Cyan - almost like Until URU. TalkIslander 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to "My definitions: "UruLive" is the original dream of the virtual world. And "MystOnline" is the current implementation of UruLive." Either way, the announcement changes very little; we don't have articles on game announcements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If anything, what you've quoted shows that Cyan see this as a separate game, i.e. the 'dream of a virtual world', and it's implementation. The above anouncement isn't for this game (URU ABM), it's for another entirely notable game (MOUL). David, if you don't wish to work on the MOUL article, that's entirely fine, it really is. However, there is no way that that article qualifies for deletion/merging/moving to the user space. Yes, it needs a tonne of improving, but it stands on it's own, is notable on it's own, and is actually a damn good starting framework for what could eventually be another Myst FA. Either work on it or ignore it - please stop needlessly hunting it. TalkIslander 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "needlessly hunting" it; I believe in quality, not quantity. Do I really have to flippin' go through all those hoops just to show that it would be better as merged content rather than a standalone article? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because so far you've failed to convince either me or Ged. TalkIslander 09:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Because clearly you guys are the be-all and end-all of wisdom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPA, please... that aside, to delete/merge/userify this article, you need consensus, something you definitely don't have right now. TalkIslander 17:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Go away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No :). Now, could we either continue discussion civily, or end them? TalkIslander 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You have made it quite clear you are only going to stand in the way of improvement and not do jack youself, so I see no point in continuing this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

←Well, my definition of improvement is not deleting perfectly valid articles that require more work. That aside, agreed, let us end this dispute. TalkIslander 19:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I intend to copy the MOUL article (the other one, not this one) into my sandbox to work on over the christmas break to see what I can come up with (dependant on me clearing some of the other stuff on my to-do list!). I do understand the argument of merging together to improve the overall Myst topic, but they really are two different, but related games. --Ged UK (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, it would be much better if you just worked on it in the mainspace, thus maintaining the edit-trail (which would be lost if you edited it in your user space). Working on it over Christmas, however: great idea! TalkIslander 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, i usually work from my sandbox to avoid downtime periods making an article seem incomplete (usually where I get distracted by something shiny), but I can work in the mainspace one too. --Ged UK (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FAC audit[edit]

I figured it would be faster if I just made the changes I would have otherwise listed here. So, there you have it. One point of clarification, though:

  • "Due to business reasons, GameTap announced in February 2008 that the game would go offline in April ..." Does the source get any more specific than "business reasons"? I want to rewrite that sentence, but is it financial reasons? Or they just got sick of it? Or what?

It's probably ready after this. --Laser brain (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

'Business reasons' is pretty much all the info Gametap gave - you can look over the press release here. I'll take a look for anything better, but I'm fairly sure that any further detail would be unsourced speculation. TalkIslander 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, typical corporate PR-speak. Well, best left as-is then. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Rand Miller[edit]

http://gamestudies.org/1001/articles/pearce_celia

Perhaps this could be added/used.

This piece is of interest:

CP: According to the wikipedia entry on Uru, the game took more than five years and $12 million dollars to make. Is that correct? How long did it take and how many people worked on it?

RM: That's as good a guess as any. I prefer not to actually go back and add it all up at this point. ☺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kienle (talkcontribs) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything usable in that respect. We have it linked near the top of this page already as press that have referenced this article. Rehevkor 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Although it's nice to have verification (of a sort.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Until Uru"[edit]

That is mentionned once in the Uru Live subsection but not before; it is not explained what "Until Uru" is and I, as a reader, am not sure what it refers to. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated according to the source, others are welcome to clean up. Яehevkor 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)